The Debate: Do JW's Need Respect?

by Mindchild 85 Replies latest jw friends

GoldDustWoman

Just a comment from an interested observer.
I love this thread.
Venice.....errr, I mean Your Honor!
I love your haute couture robe .
GDW
tyydyy

The Lie:
The examples shown regarding the theocratic war strategy are referring to situations where the basic human rights of freedom of religion have been violated or when someones life or health is in danger. In the past when faced with a life threatening situation, the Witness still told the truth and subsequently they were imprisoned or killed. They have only recently been told that it's ok to lie under those circumstances. No Witness believes that it's ok to lie to anyone who is not a witness just because they don't need to know the truth.
TimB
Mindchild

Just where is this Judge at tonight? I bet she ran off with the balif and they are doing more than washing her car!
Now that I got that off my mind, it is time to make a few comments on the Defense's rebutalls.
I don't recognize the Bible as any kind of authority in these matters. One can use the Bible to show precedence for any arguement and that is a totally different subject.
For example: Look at the example of Bear that killed 40 children when they called a "prophet of god" an old bald head.
Respectfully Mr. Defense, I don't consider it an authority either but there are a great many ex-JW's in this court of the common ex-dub who do subscribe to these beliefs and use them as a basis for their behavior, although admitedly somewhat differently than the WTS does.
These scriptures therefor justify to them at least the ability to speak confrontationally, and even right in someone's face about the Evil Empire without the least bit of guilt feelings.
I wish the judge would stop fooling around and come back here and play her role! Grrrr
Skipper
Scully

Counsel for the Defense purports:
The Lie:
The examples shown regarding the theocratic war strategy are referring to situations where the basic human rights of freedom of religion have been violated or when someones life or health is in danger. In the past when faced with a life threatening situation, the Witness still told the truth and subsequently they were imprisoned or killed. They have only recently been told that it's ok to lie under those circumstances. No Witness believes that it's ok to lie to anyone who is not a witness just because they don't need to know the truth.
Your Honour, the Prosecution submits that "Theocratic War Strategy" has been employed by the WTS for the express purpose of furthering its interests worldwide.
For instance: In seeking to regain recognition and religious status from the Government of Bulgaria, the following document is presented:
On June 28, 1994, the government in Bulgaria refused the application to renew the registration for "Khristiansko Sdruzhenie "Sviditili na Iehova" (Christian Assiciation of Jehovah's Witnesses). In effect, Jehovah's Witnesses were no longer recognized as a "religion" in Bulgaria, and therefore could not enjoy the benefits associated with the official status of "religion".
The Bulgarian Witnesses viewed this action as persecution. In an effort to regain their former status, they made an official complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. Since this petition was likely done with the support and backing of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, we feel that the statements made by the applicant's representatives (i.e. the statements made by the Jehovah's Witnesses' lawyers) can be included in this web reference. Some of the quotes on this page are from the documentation generated by that petition.
You can read the Admissibility Decision for this case at the European Commission of Human Rights' official web site. Click here to see that Admissibility Decision.
The matter before the Commission was finally settled by way of a "friendly agreement" between the two parties. To read the complete "REPORT OF THE COMMISSION" as posted at the Commission's web site, click here. Note that parts of this report are written in French. A reproduction of part of this document, along with English translation, is included below.
A summary of the matter, written in English is also available at the Commission's web site: [link no longer functions www.dhcommhr.coe.fr/eng/E276INFO.148.html].
*** European Commission of Human Rights, Information Note no. 148 [link no longer functions www.dhcommhr.coe.fr/eng/E276INFO.148.html]***
II. Reports adopted
(i) Reports adopted under Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention (friendly settlement)
(a) One Report was adopted by the plenary Commission under Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, concluding that a friendly settlement had been secured:
- KHRISTIANSKO SDRUZHENIE "SVIDETELI NA IEHOVA" (CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES) v. Bulgaria (Application No. 28626/95)
The case concerned the refusal to re-register the applicant association pursuant to a 1994 law, and the alleged suppression of its activities and those of its members. In settlement, the Government agreed to introduce legislation as soon as possible to provide for civilian service for conscientious objectors, as an alternative to military service, and to register the applicant association as a religion. The applicant [Jehovah's Witnesses] undertook with regard to its stance on blood transfusions to draft a statement for inclusion in its statute providing that members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association.
Your Honour, in its declaring to the government of Bulgaria that "members should have free choice in the matter [of blood transfusions] for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association", it was in fact employing "Theocratic War Strategy". The prosecution agrees that Freedom of Worship is a basic human right and to deny such is a violation of that freedom. However, this does not excuse the WTS from lying in order to regain its previous status. The Government of Bulgaria, in fact, had the best interests of the CHILDREN of Jehovah's Witnesses in mind, when the issue of blood transfusions caused them to revoke the status of Jehovah's Witnesses in that land. Rather than a change in policy, as the statement by the WTS would lead one to believe, a lie was told, and a PERJURY was committed, which endangers the lives of children.
While "Theocratic War Strategy" may indeed be useful in securing Freedom of Worship for Jehovah's Witnesses, the basic human right to LIFE (especially the lives of children), must supercede the parents' religious freedom. This issue has been dealt with in the Supreme Court of Canada, and sets a precedent for this trial.
When the basic human right to life is denied to a child by a religious group that wilfully lies to and confounds a Tribunal such as this Court in seeking to further its right to Freedom of Worship, it shows a blatant DISRESPECT for the Tribunal AND for the lives of children under its jurisdiction. Does such an entity deserve respect in return? I say to You, Your Honour, and this Court, that it does NOT.
Respectfully,
Ms. Scully, Co-Counsel for the Prosecution
VeniceIT

ALL RISE!!! (having computer difficulties)
First matter at hand. Mr Tim I can understand your concern to the objections raised. You though were not on had to refute them at the time. Also since this is not a normal court of law and we have to rely on postings I will allow the objections to stand, but your objection to this is duly noted.
My car is very clean if anyone's interested.
"Injustice will continue until those who are not affected by it are as outraged as those who are."
Scully

For Your Honour's Indulgence, I submit herewith an addendum to my previous post with regard to the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that the minor child, as the most vulnerable member of any society, has a right to life and to necessary medical treatment which supercedes their parents' right to freedom of worship. It is the position of the Supreme Court of Canada that the People have an obligation, where these rights are being withheld from children, to intervene on their behalf.
SUPREME COURT RULES THAT CHILD'S RIGHT TO MEDICAL CARE IS PARAMOUNT
January 28, 1995: OTTAWA, ONT.
Giving life-saving medical care to children against parent's wishes is a justified infringement on religious freedom, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled. The Court also said that state intervention to provide such care does not violate parents' liberty to bring up their children as they see fit. "The right to liberty...does not include a parent's right to deny a child medical treatment that has been adjudged necessary by a medical professional," wrote Justices Frank Iacobucci and John Major. The ruling came in the case of a Jehovah's Witness family whose infant daughter (identified only as Sheena B) was given a blood transfusion 12 years ago against the parents' religious beliefs.
The judgment means parents may not refuse their children necessary treatment if there is no reasonable alternative. It will affect children of such parents as Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists whose faiths forbid certain medical treatment.
Five of the nine judges said that the parents' right to choose medical treatment for their baby according to their faith was seriously infringed but they felt infringement was justified.
Respectfully,
Ms. Scully, Co-Counsel for the Prosecution
Scully

bttt
It is not persecution for an informed person
to expose a certain religion as being false. - WT 11/15/63
A religion that teaches lies cannot be true. -WT 12/1/91
clash_city_rockers

tyydyy posted:
Ask people working at that facility before the disaster and you would find that the majority did feel the plant was good for the community. They were happy that it did provide jobs. They did feel it was doing a good public service. Once the corrections were made then it once again gained respect as an organization. To the same level?? Probably not. But they still do provide jobs and do a good public service to this day. Do we call for the End of Union Carbide? No. We call for safety corrections to be made.
The WTS has made adjustments on the Blood issue and in due time it will not be an issue. In the meantime the Witnesses have had great success using alternative blood products.

Will it please the court that this is a fallicy of confusing the catagoies. What does one have to do with the other the WT is a corrupt man made organisation with legalistic policies that has cost the lives of thousands a organisation with no accountability governed by a heartless autocratic mobsters. At least Union Carbite has accountability to the Civil Magistrate (government) and various tree hugging organizations that monitor thier actions.
Venice, Robert's Rules of Order would be a great format
tyydyy

The defense would like to point out that the comparison to the Union Carbide was introduced by the prosecution and the logical defense was entirely appropriate.
The Battle for Freedom
The WTS has seen the need to change on some issues such as immunizations, acceptance of blood products, shunning, voting...etc.
These changes have been slower than many would like but they don't necesarily follow the accepted moral code of the society around them. This makes them unique but they haven't broken any laws in the process. This organization feels strongly about it's beliefs and they are willing to suffer for what they believe. This fundamental right to worship is one of the core issues on which this United States was founded on. Freedom comes at a cost. Yes from time to time some do die rather than give up that freedom. Some are imprisoned for exercising that basic human right. Each individual has that choice and they are not coerced by some evil leader. Yes they feel pressure, but that pressure is from their own concience. As adjustments are made to conform to a better understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses core doctrines these costs will be reduced.
As we look across the world we find the supression of this freedom disgusting. The Afganistan Gov. is an excellent example. Now that countries that believe in freedom have come to the aid of the Afganistan people, they are free to worship as they see fit. They each have a choice. God Bless the USA. How do we keep the same thing from happening in our great country? We respect the rights of others to worship in the way they see fit. Who are we to judge for someone else what is the right form of worship? We have every right to decide for ourselves and that is just the way we want to keep it.
The WTS has spent many years defending this basic human right not just in the US but around the world. They have done much within the system of other governments to guarantee these rights for themselves but also for other people wishing to worship in their own way. God Bless The WTS!
TimB
clash_city_rockers

tyydyy,
look, I am sympathetic to you cause for the most point but just want you to make logical valid argument that are true...
Take a logic class and learn what modus ponens and modus tollens and other things in the wonderfull world of logic even though the class may be a bit boring

The Debate: Do JW's Need Respect?

Share this